NLRB ready to rule on Union's claim against NBA

[DBoys]

yep they made an incredibly bad deal in 2005 ... and obviously one so overly generous the players would like them to make it again .... and now the players are even whining that it's "unfair" if they don't get the same deal again or one similar to it ....spoiled brats

Kinda like buying your 18 year old son a Benz, then tell him a year later you gotta take it back because you can't afford it?

Pretty much. They think the world owes them a Benz (or 57%) in perpetuity, after they get a taste.

Never should have happened in the first place.

Aint no sane owner gonna agree to give his labor more profit than what he keeps himself.

The players are greedy, but you have to question the other side of the table as well.

No question they were overly generous to the point of stupidity on that 2005 deal. I bet they themselves would even admit as much. But they're certainly smarter for having made the mistake last time, this time around.

[DBoys]

"why did these same owners agree to give the players 57% of BRI?"

they made an incredibly bad deal in 2005 ... and obviously one so overly generous the players would like them to make it again .... and now the players are even whining that it's "unfair" if they don't get the same deal again or one similar to it ....spoiled brats

Kinda like buying your 18 year old son a Benz, then tell him a year later you gotta take it back because you can't afford it?

What if your son is Justin Bieber?

If he can get out of your house and get his own Benz - aka go to Europe or China and make more - then more power to him. If your deal is the best he has, he has to live with what you can afford.

[Thugger HBC]

"why did these same owners agree to give the players 57% of BRI?"

they made an incredibly bad deal in 2005 ... and obviously one so overly generous the players would like them to make it again .... and now the players are even whining that it's "unfair" if they don't get the same deal again or one similar to it ....spoiled brats

Kinda like buying your 18 year old son a Benz, then tell him a year later you gotta take it back because you can't afford it?

What if your son is Justin Bieber?

So what if he was?

[DBoys]

What if your son is Justin Bieber?

So what if he was?

We all know that the moon is not made of green cheese. But what if it were made of barbeque spare ribs, would you eat it then?

[83SixersRocked]

"why did these same owners agree to give the players 57% of BRI?"

they made an incredibly bad deal in 2005 ... and obviously one so overly generous the players would like them to make it again .... and now the players are even whining that it's "unfair" if they don't get the same deal again or one similar to it ....spoiled brats

But they're not asking for the same deal or similar to it. Are the owners spoiled brats if they get what they're asking for?

[DBoys]

"why did these same owners agree to give the players 57% of BRI?"

they made an incredibly bad deal in 2005 ... and obviously one so overly generous the players would like them to make it again .... and now the players are even whining that it's "unfair" if they don't get the same deal again or one similar to it ....spoiled brats

But they're not asking for the same deal or similar to it. Are the owners spoiled brats if they get what they're asking for?

huh?

[Thugger HBC]

What if your son is Justin Bieber?

So what if he was?

We all know that the moon is not made of green cheese. But what if it were made of barbeque spare ribs, would you eat it then?

What is your point?

These same owners made a bad deal then, I called the players greedy on more than one occasion.

I have absolutely no confidence in the care takers of the league.

No sane owner gives up more than half of his profits to his worker, even when he is profitable.

I think 50-50 is ridiculous for the owners to have proposed, but as a player I would have taken it to get the doors back open.

One side is greedy, the other side is dumb as hell.

[DBoys]

"No sane owner gives up more than half of his profits to his worker"

The owners weren't giving up 57% of their profits in the last deal ....they were giving up about 114% of them to the players.

The owners aren't offering to give up 50% of their profits in this deal ....they are offering about 98% of their profits, while the players want 106% of them.

[Thugger HBC]

"No sane owner gives up more than half of his profits to his worker"

The owners weren't giving up 57% of their profits in the last deal ....they were giving up about 114% of them to the players.

The owners aren't offering to give up 50% of their profits in this deal ....they are offering about 98% of their profits, while the players want 106% of them.

What?

edit: Yeah I saw that deleted post as well.

[DBoys]

You said "No sane owner gives up more than half of his profits to his worker" in the context of speaking of the 50-50 split proposed by owners but rejected by players. From that, it appears you are defining "profit" as money taken in, minus (non-player) expenses.

Using that definition, in the last deal the players got all of the profit (and more besides) and right now they are again seeking all of the profit (and more besides). My prior post that you quoted simply said the very same thing, only with more detail.

[Thugger HBC]

You said "No sane owner gives up more than half of his profits to his worker" in the context of speaking of the 50-50 split proposed by owners but rejected by players. From that, it appears you are defining "profit" as money taken in, minus (non-player) expenses.

Using that definition, in the last deal the players got all of the profit (and more besides) and right now they are again seeking all of the profit (and more besides). My prior post that you quoted simply said the very same thing, only with more detail.

How are you getting that from what I said?

So the owners are offering 50-50, but it really means 100-0?

Hey man, put the pipe down, you've had enough.

[DBoys]

I'm responding to your assertions about splitting profits. You said "No sane owner gives up more than half of his profits to his worker" in the context of speaking of the 50-50 split proposed by owners but rejected by players. Either you mean what you said or you don't.

[Wizenheimer]

"why did these same owners agree to give the players 57% of BRI?"

they made an incredibly bad deal in 2005 ... and obviously one so overly generous the players would like them to make it again .... and now the players are even whining that it's "unfair" if they don't get the same deal again or one similar to it ....spoiled brats

Kinda like buying your 18 year old son a Benz, then tell him a year later you gotta take it back because you can't afford it?

no, it's not like that

it's like buying your son a Benz, and you pay the gas, insurance, and maintenance, and then 7 years later, after he's driven the hell out of it and it's time for a new car, you tell him you can only afford to buy him a Lexus this time around and he has to pay half of the insurance.

He of course, pitches a fit, accuses you of unfair auto practice, and demands that you buy him another Benz, but that he will pay 1/8th of the insurance and fill the tank up 3 times a year...the rest is on you

so you ground him until he gets a grip

[killbuckner]

From everything I have read the NLRB stepping in to stop the lockout would be an extreme longshot. Though that NLRB has become far more union friendly in the past years it does seem unlikely they would step in here.

[Thugger HBC]

I'm responding to your assertions about splitting profits. You said "No sane owner gives up more than half of his profits to his worker" in the context of speaking of the 50-50 split proposed by owners but rejected by players. Either you mean what you said or you don't.

Ok, man, ok.

[Thugger HBC]

"why did these same owners agree to give the players 57% of BRI?"

they made an incredibly bad deal in 2005 ... and obviously one so overly generous the players would like them to make it again .... and now the players are even whining that it's "unfair" if they don't get the same deal again or one similar to it ....spoiled brats

Kinda like buying your 18 year old son a Benz, then tell him a year later you gotta take it back because you can't afford it?

no, it's not like that

it's like buying your son a Benz, and you pay the gas, insurance, and maintenance, and then 7 years later, after he's driven the hell out of it and it's time for a new car, you tell him you can only afford to buy him a Lexus this time around and he has to pay half of the insurance.

He of course, pitches a fit, accuses you of unfair auto practice, and demands that you buy him another Benz, but that he will pay 1/8th of the insurance and fill the tank up 3 times a year...the rest is on you

so you ground him until he gets a grip

Your son may be the only way you can get around to do what ever you do in life.

There has to be a bonafide reason why you did all that for your son...in your example.

[Thugger HBC]

From everything I have read the NLRB stepping in to stop the lockout would be an extreme longshot. Though that NLRB has become far more union friendly in the past years it does seem unlikely they would step in here.

They'll step in, whether anything gets changed is the long shot.

[DBoys]

From everything I have read the NLRB stepping in to stop the lockout would be an extreme longshot. Though that NLRB has become far more union friendly in the past years it does seem unlikely they would step in here.

Back to the actual topic???? Awwww, say it ain't so!!!

Munson at ESPN touted (and probably exaggerated) the prospects of success for the players. From what I've read, you've got a better read on it than he does, as these "you're not bargaining fairly" cases are incredible longshots in the strongest of cases.

We obviously don't have the specifics of the offers. But all along, it's also seemed that the league has been crossing their t's and dotting their i's every step of the way to buttress their prospects on any possible legal maneuvering that might arise, so it's hard to imagine there is anything unseen that's a smoking gun.

All in all I have my doubts this was anything beyond a PR-intended move that's being answered sooner than they expected. Had a deal been settled by now, the NLRB would never have ruled.

[Wizenheimer]

no, it's not like that

it's like buying your son a Benz, and you pay the gas, insurance, and maintenance, and then 7 years later, after he's driven the hell out of it and it's time for a new car, you tell him you can only afford to buy him a Lexus this time around and he has to pay half of the insurance.

He of course, pitches a fit, accuses you of unfair auto practice, and demands that you buy him another Benz, but that he will pay 1/8th of the insurance and fill the tank up 3 times a year...the rest is on you

so you ground him until he gets a grip

Your son may be the only way you can get around to do what ever you do in life.

There has to be a bonafide reason why you did all that for your son...in your example.

first of all, let's be clear: it's your son...

the "whatever you do in your life" was apparently rewarding enough to be able to buy your son the Benz in the first place as well as the roads he drives on

[DBoys]

"why did these same owners agree to give the players 57% of BRI?"

they made an incredibly bad deal in 2005 ... and obviously one so overly generous the players would like them to make it again .... and now the players are even whining that it's "unfair" if they don't get the same deal again or one similar to it ....spoiled brats

Kinda like buying your 18 year old son a Benz, then tell him a year later you gotta take it back because you can't afford it?

no, it's not like that

it's like buying your son a Benz, and you pay the gas, insurance, and maintenance, and then 7 years later, after he's driven the hell out of it and it's time for a new car, you tell him you can only afford to buy him a Lexus this time around and he has to pay half of the insurance.

He of course, pitches a fit, accuses you of unfair auto practice, and demands that you buy him another Benz, but that he will pay 1/8th of the insurance and fill the tank up 3 times a year...the rest is on you

so you ground him until he gets a grip

Would someone please send Garnett to his room? Sheesh.